Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

November 9, 1998
98-204EPW

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and budget reconciliation bills. This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate Subcommittees on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations.

98-204 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies
Updated November 9, 1998
Dennis W. Snook, Coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Subcommittees on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html].
Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies
Summary
The President signed P.L. 105-276 on October 21, 1998, completing action on
FY1999 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and several independent entities including the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and the Corporation for National and Community Service
(CNCS). Congress provided $93.4 billion for FY1999, up from $88.4 billion for
these agencies in FY1998. The House had approved $94.4 billion for these agencies
for FY1999 in its bill (H.R. 4194); the Senate bill (S. 2168) contained $93.3 billion;
the Administration requested $93.7 billion, according to the consistent evaluations
included with the conference report (H.Rept. 105-769).
Before passage of H. R. 4194, the House had attached the language of H.R. 2,
the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, an authorization bill for housing
programs that had passed both Chambers, but which had not reached conference.
Conferees on the VA-HUD bill included a compromise version of the housing
legislation in their deliberations, resulting in a sweeping reform of federal public
housing programs. The final bill provides $24.3 billion in funding for HUD
programs, up $2.9 billion over FY1998.
Overall spending for veterans programs will also increase in FY1999. P.L. 105276 provides $42.6 billion to VA, up $1.6 billion over FY1998, and $438 million
more than the Administration requested. Most of this increase is for mandatory
spending of $1.3 billion for cost-of-living adjustments to benefit programs, and for
increases in the expected caseload. VA discretionary appropriations are up $336
million. Most of the increases would be for medical care and research.
Funding for NASA rises for the first time in several years — conferees provide
the space agency with $200 million more than requested, and more than either
Chamber’s bill included. Conferees approved additional funds for science programs,
and for mission support. The Senate had criticized inter-account transfers to help pay
for space station cost overruns, and specified more clearly where the money can be
spent. Conferees retained the current account structure, but directed NASA to put
the controversial International Space Station into a separate account for FY2000.
Conferees also increased amounts for EPA, beyond levels contained in the bills
passing each Chamber. Most of the added funds were for capital projects to assist
states and tribal governments in their efforts to clean up drinking water. FEMA will
receive amounts similar to FY1998, and conferees did not adopt the Senate’s
proposed approach to advance planning for disaster mitigation. Among other
independent agencies funded by the bill, NSF received a $242 million increase over
FY1998, and funding for CNCS, which administers AmeriCorps, was continued at
the FY1998 level — the House bill had not contained any funding for the
Corporation.
Key Policy Staff
Name
Area of Expertise
CRS Division
Tel.
Keith Bea
Emergency Management
GOV
7-8672
Eugene Boyd
Community Development
GOV
7-8689
Michael Davey
Science and Space
STM
7-7074
Bruce Foote
Housing
E
7-7300
Martin Lee
Environmental Policy
ENR
7-7260
Ann Lordeman
National Community Service
EPW
7-2323
Christine Matthews
National Science Foundation
STM
7-7055
Bruce Mulock
Consumer Affairs
E
7-7775
Pauline Smale
Banking, Special Need Housing
E
7-7300
Dick Rowberg
National Aero. Space Admin.
STM
7-7040
Dennis Snook
Veterans Affairs
EPW
7-7314
Susan Vanhorenbeck
Housing
E
7-7300
Division abbreviations: A = American Law; E = Economics; ENR = Environment and Natural Resources; EPW =
Education and Public Welfare; F = Foreign Affairs; GOV = Government; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Total Appropriations for FY1999 for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
VA Cash Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
VA Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Housing Certificate Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Public Housing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Native American Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Rural Housing and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Community Planning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Homeless Assistance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The HOME Investment Partnership Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Youthbuild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) . . . . . . . . 11
Lead-based Paint Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Growth in Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Quality Housing Opportunity and Work Responsibility Act . . . . . . . 14
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
American Battle Monuments Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Community Development Financial Institution Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Consumer Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Consumer Product Safety Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) . . . . . . . . 23
Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality . 24
Court of Veterans Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
National Credit Union Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Selective Service System (SSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. Summary Table: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 2
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 . . 3
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY1999 . . . . . . . 12
Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 15
Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency, FY1999 . . . . . . . 16
Table 9. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY1999 . 17
Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 11. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 . . 20
Table 13. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 14. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
Most Recent Developments
Final Action on P. L. 105-276. The President signed the FY1999 VA-HUD bill
on October 21, 1998. Much of the conference on the bill was spent hammering out
an agreement on Title V, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,
a reform of public housing and tenant-based housing assistance that the House had
added to H.R. 4194.
Senate Action. On July 17, 1998, the Senate adopted S. 2168 (S.Rept. 105216), The Senate acted favorably on the recommendations of its Appropriations
Committee, and passed the bill without shifting recommended amounts among the
various components of the bill.
House Action. On July 29, 1998, the House approved H.R. 4194 (H.Rept. 105610), adopting several floor amendments, including one containing the language of
H.R. 2, The Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act.
Line Item Veto. On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Line
Item Veto Act of 1996 is unconstitutional, which could restore $14 million in vetoed
FY1998 VA-HUD appropriations. Official data does not yet reflect these restored
funds, and they are not included in these tables.
Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1998. Enactment of P.L.
105-174 (May 1, 1998), provided $2.6 billion in supplemental appropriations,
including $1.6 billion in FEMA disaster aid, mostly offset by rescissions of $2.3
billion in unspent HUD funds. Except where noted, the changes are reflected in the
totals for FY1998 spending. (CRS Report 98-123, Supplemental Appropriations and
Rescissions for FY1998, by Larry Nowels, Coordinator).
Status
Table 1. Status of VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations, FY1999
Subcommittee
Markup
House Passed Senate Passed Conference
House Senate Report House Report Senate
Report
6-18
6-9
7-8
7-29
6-12
7-17
10-5
Conference Report
Approval
House
Senate
Public
Law
10-6
10-8
10-21
CRS-2
Total Appropriations for FY1999 for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies
Introduction. The allocations for VA, HUD, and NASA comprised 86% of the
total appropriations for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies in the FY1998
appropriations bill. The FY1999 appropriations act, P. L. 105-276, continues this
distribution: VA received approximately 46% of the total appropriation, HUD
received 26%, and NASA received 15%.
Table 2. Summary Table: VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
FY1998
Enacted
Admin.
Request
Housepassed
(H.R. 4194)
Senatepassed
(S. 2168)
P.L.
105-276
Veterans Affairs
40.977
42.150
42.653
42.522
42.588
Housing and Urban
Development
21.445
24.815
26.145
24.094
24.342
Environmental
Protection Agency
7.363
7.790
7.423
7.413
7.560
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
0.830
0.844
0.817
1.362
0.827
National Aeronautics;
Space Administration
13.648
13.465
13.328
13.615
13.665
National Science
Foundation
3.429
3.773
3.697
3.644
3.671
Other Independent
Agencies
0.700
0.852
0.313
0.682
0.738
88.392
93.689
94.376
93.332
93.391
Department or Agency
Total Appropriations
(rounded, may not add)
Source: H.Rept. 105-769.
CRS-3
Key Policy Issues
Department of Veterans Affairs
Congress approved $42.588 billion in appropriations for VA for FY1999, up
from $40.977 billion for FY1998 (after incorporating supplemental appropriations,
and various reestimates of mandatory spending for that year). The Administration
had requested $42.150 billion for FY1999; the Senate approved $42.522 billion; the
House, $42.653 billion. The Administration recommended a slight decrease in
medical care funding — the House and Senate called for increases, and conferees
settled on $278 million more than provided in FY1998. Both Houses approved
almost identical amounts for new construction projects, an amount about $80 million
more than requested — conferees accepted the levels in the bills passing the two
Chambers. The final bill also added to the Administration’s request for grants to
states to help fund veterans’ facility projects at the state level.
P.L. 105-65 provided $40.43 billion for veterans programs in FY1998. The
Administration reestimated VA mandatory spending to require $550 million more for
FY1998, and included a request for that amount in its recommendation for
supplemental appropriations. P.L. 105-174, signed on May 1, 1998 provided these
supplemental funds, needed mostly to fund cost of living adjustments (COLA) and
additional benefits because of increased caseloads. Final estimates of VA funding
for FY1998 (included with H.Rept. 105-769) totaled $40.977 billion.
For additional information on VA programs, see CRS Report 97-266, Veterans
Issues in the 105th Congress, by Dennis Snook.
Table 3. Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
$36.83
$37.48
$38.37
$40.09
$40.98
$42.59
Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769.
VA Cash Benefits. FY1998 appropriations included $22.1 billion for VA cash
entitlement benefits, mostly service-connected compensation, pensions, and
Montgomery GI-Bill education payments. Spending for the VA cash benefit
programs is mandatory, and the amounts requested by the budget are based on
projected caseloads. Definitions of eligibility and benefit levels are in law. For
FY1999, the Administration estimates that VA entitlement programs will require
$23.3 billion in mandatory appropriations. P. L. 105-276 provides the estimated
amounts.
Medical Care. Congress appropriated $17.057 billion in funds for VA medical
care for FY1998, an amount fairly close to the amount provided by direct
appropriations for FY1997, after considering various differences in accounting
CRS-4
between the 2 fiscal years. Congress also enacted language in the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) so that net medical cost reimbursement receipts from the
Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) remain available to VA for medical services
to veterans rather than be transferred to the Treasury as under previous law; that
change added an estimated $558 million ($543 million of which was guaranteed
under P.L. 105-65) to medical care spending authority for FY1998. The Committees
estimated that the MCCF collections will be $558 million in FY1999.
For FY1999, the Administration again proposed a near freeze to medical care
appropriations, requesting $17.028 billion (various unobligated balances and
carryover budget authority make estimates of frozen appropriation levels somewhat
imprecise). The House approved $17.361 billion; the Senate approved $17.250
billion. The Conference Report encourages VA to seek further efficiencies in
medical care services to expand the number of veterans who can be served with these
appropriated resources. In general, the additional funds would expand outpatient care
resources, fund telemedicine projects for veterans in remote areas, and provide
increased access to medical care for veterans in rural areas.
The Senate added $10 million to the Administration’s request of $300 million
for medical and prosthetic research, mostly to fund research in alcoholism and its
treatment, and for research on the disease neurofibromatosis; the House approved
$320 million. Conferees provided $316 million in the final bill.
For additional information on VA medical care, see CRS Report 97-786,
Veterans Medical Care: Major Changes Underway, by Dennis Snook.
VA Construction. For FY1999, Congress provided $317 million in new
construction project funding. For FY1998, Congress appropriated $353 million for
new construction and redirected to outpatient access projects, $32.1 million that had
been previously authorized and appropriated for a new hospital in California.
The Administration’s FY1999 budget requested $238 million in new
construction spending, including $73 million for correcting earthquake damage in
San Juan, Puerto Rico and Long Beach, California, and $69 million for increasing
outpatient access in various locations. Congress added $80 million more for
construction projects than the budget requested. The additional funds would allow
upgrades for facilities to occur sooner than otherwise would be possible.
The Conference Report calls for expanded outpatient access in the Wade Park
facility in Cleveland, Ohio ($21 million); renovations for nursing home care at
Lebanon, Pennsylvania ($9.5 million); and improved outpatient access in Tucson,
Arizona ($25 million). P. L. 105-276 provides $53 million more in grants for state
extended care facilities than requested, so that a $150 million backlog of scheduled
projects under the federal/state program can be accomplished more quickly.
Program Administration. The appropriations bill provides $856 million for
the General Operating Expenses (GOE) account for administering VA benefit
programs, and $63 million for medical care administration, for FY1999. Congress
appropriated $786 million for GOE for FY1998, and $60 million for medical
administration. Average employment requested for VA benefit programs for FY1999
CRS-5
is 11,221, a decrease of 125 from FY1998. Medical staff, most of whom are engaged
in patient care, is expected to decline during FY1999, to 180,411 from 183,000 in
FY1998.
Table 4. Appropriations: Department of Veterans Affairs, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
Housepassed
(H.R.
4194)
Senatepassed
(S. 2168)
P.L.
105-276
21.857
21.857
21.857
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.166
0.264
0.264
0.264
0.264
Readjustment benefits
1.366
1.175
1.175
1.175
1.175
Subtotal: Mandatory
22.067
23.342
23.342
23.342
23.342
Medical care
17.057
17.028
17.361
17.250
17.306
—
—
—
—
FY1998
Enacted
Admin.
Request
Comp., pension, burial
20.483
21.857
Insurance/indemnities
0.051
Housing programs
Program
— Cost collection
guaranteea
0.015
Medical/prosthetic
research
0.272
0.300
0.320
0.310
0.316
Construction, major
0.178
0.097
0.143
0.142
0.142
Construction, minor
0.175
0.141
0.175
0.175
0.175
Grants for state facilities
0.080
0.037
0.101
0.090
0.090
State veteran cemeteries
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Nat’l cemetery system
0.084
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
General operating exp.
0.786
0.850
0.856
0.855
0.856
Admin. exp. (housing
program)
0.162
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Inspector General
0.031
0.033
0.033
0.036
0.036
Medical Administration
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.063
Subtotal: Discretionary
18.910
18.808
19.311
19.180
19.246
Subtotal: (Veterans
Affairs)
40.977
42.150
42.653
42.522
42.588
Source: H.Rept. 105-769
a
Receipts of the Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF) are available for spending in the Medical
Care account, and $558 million in additional funds from this source are estimated for both FY1998
and FY1999. P.L. 105-65 guaranteed that $543 million would be obtained for FY1998; the guarantee
is assumed to require $15 million in appropriations.
CRS-6
Department of Housing and Urban Development
According to H.Rept. 105-769, P. L. 105-276 provides $24.34 billion for
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
FY1999; after taking into consideration the rescissions of P.L. 105-174, the
appropriated amount is a $2.9 billion increase over FY1998 levels. In addition, Title
V of the VA-HUD bill is a sweeping reform of the Department’s public housing and
tenant-based housing assistance programs; the authorizing language of Title V
occupies three/quarters of the bill’s total length.
For further information on this significant change in federal housing policy, see
CRS Report 98-860, Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Programs for LowIncome Families, by Morton J. Schussheim; and CRS Report 98-868, Public Housing
and Section 8 Reforms: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,
by Richard Bourdon.
According to the Conference Report, President Clinton requested $24.8 billion
in HUD appropriations for this fiscal year. High points of the President’s request for
HUD include: increases in affordable housing; 103,000 new housing vouchers;
increases in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Community
Empowerment funds; extensions of the HOME program and the creation of a HOME
“bank”; increases in housing assistance for the homeless and persons with AIDS; and
changes in the FHA mortgage credit program.
The Senate approved a $24.1 billion budget for HUD in FY1999, the House
approved $26.1 billion for HUD. The House and Senate differed in amounts
appropriated for components of the Housing Certificate Fund, and in their treatment
of Federal Housing Authority (FHA) administrative expenses, as well as in various
earmarks and program subcategories. Conferees approved more than either House’s
bill for the Housing Certificate Fund, in part because of concerns expressed by the
Administration that the reforms in federal housing programs contained in Title V
would have an adverse effect on very low-income families on waiting lists for public
housing. The Conference Report endorses 50,000 additional vouchers to address
these concerns.
For further information on the President’s FY1999 budget request for HUD, see
CRS Report 98-345, Budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for FY1999, by Susan Vanhorenbeck, Bruce E. Foote, and Pauline Smale.
Table 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current $; net after rescissions)
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
$24.87
$20.09
$19.13
$16.30
$21.44
$24.34
CRS-7
Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769.
Housing Certificate Fund. According to the Conference Report, the President
requested a total of $8.98 billion for various vouchers and other forms of Section 81
housing assistance, financed through the Housing Certificate Fund. Among the
specific uses requested for these funds are the following: Section 8 contract
renewals, Section 8 contract amendments, protection of housing tenants affected by
non-renewals (i.e., Section 8 relocation assistance), and regional opportunity
counseling. The Senate approved funding of $10.01 billion for the Housing
Certificate Fund in FY1999, offset in part by $1.4 billion in rescissions. The House
approved $10.2 billion. Conferees provided $10.3 billion, offset by $1.65 billion in
rescissions. Details on the uses of these funds follow.
For information on Section 8 issues, see CRS Report 96-667, Section 8: Past,
Present, and Future, by Susan Vanhorenbeck.
Expiring Rental Contracts. HUD proposed $7.2 billion for renewing all
Section 8 contracts due to expire in FY1999, assuming the cooperation of the project
owners. HUD had identified approximately $3.7 billion in recaptured Section 8
reserve funds which also could be used to renew contracts in FY1999, bringing the
total available for renewals to $10.9 billion. HUD estimated that this amount was
sufficient to renew expiring contracts for 2,046,231 units.2 However, the
Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of FY1998 rescinded $2.3 billion
of the Section 8 reserve fund. (During deliberations on the supplemental bill,
Congress said that it would appropriate the amount of the rescinded funds to HUD
for the FY1999 Section 8 contract renewals.) The Senate approved $9.54 billion for
Section 8 contract renewals in FY1999; the House approved $9.60 billion; the
Conference approved the House amount.
HUD would continue to renew these contracts through the “mark-to-market”
restructuring program established in the VA-HUD FY1998 Appropriations Act, and
estimates that $562 million will be saved from funds that would otherwise be
expended on contracts inflated beyond market rates.
For more information on these issues, see CRS Report 97-264, The Problem of
Section 8 Expiring Contracts, by Susan M. Vanhorenbeck.
Section 8 Amendments. The President requested $1.3 billion in budget
authority for contract amendments in FY1999. Another $463 million of Section 8
reserves recaptured from local housing programs would also be available, bringing
the total for contract amendments to $1.8 billion in FY1999. HUD has stated that it
will pursue a number of savings proposals for the Section 8 program in FY1999, and
continue savings provisions of the FY1998 appropriations act. The Senate did not
agree with the President’s request and provided no appropriation for Section 8
1
Section 8, of the Housing Act of 1937 (as amended), provides subsidies for rental housing
for low-income families.
2
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Congressional Justifications for
1999 Estimates. p. R-2.
CRS-8
amendments in FY1999. In fact, the Senate bill rescinds $1.4 billion in Section 8
project-based reserves. The House approved $97 million for Section 8 amendments.
The Conference bill concurred with the Senate, providing no funds for Section 8
amendments, and raised the rescinded amount to $1.650 billion.
Relocation Assistance. The Administration anticipates that not all owners of
Section 8 assisted housing may be willing to renew their contracts. The Housing
Certificate Fund will provide funding for those families that are affected if a contract
renewal does not take place. The President requested $374 million for the housing
tenants’ protection in FY1999, which would be used to subsidize tenants who are
displaced or whose rents increase as a result of the restructuring of the Section 8
program. The Administration estimates that this amount would aid approximately
32,000 families in this situation. In addition, $60 million would be used to fund
10,655 additional vouchers to help low income families move into subsidized
housing. The Senate approved the $434 million for this program for FY1999; the
House concurred, and the Conference bill includes these levels.
Regional Opportunity Council. The President requested $20 million in new
funding for the Regional Opportunity Counseling program (ROC). HUD also asked
that a portion of Section 8 funds be set-aside within the Housing Certificate Fund to
reward public housing authorities that successfully reduce the poverty concentration
of families using tenant-based assistance.3 The Senate bill does not contain this
proposal; the House provides $10 million; P. L. 105-276 accepts the House level.
Public Housing Programs. HUD began a serious transformation of the public
housing system in FY1993, and the FY1999 budget request continues this endeavor.
The President proposed $283 million to assist families in which the primary worker
is making the transition from welfare to work. The FY1999 budget request also
proposed $2.55 billion for the public housing capital fund, $2.818 billion for the
public housing operating fund, $310 million for drug elimination grants, and $550
million for the revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI).
The Senate bill provides $2.818 billion for public housing operating funds;
$2.55 billion for public housing capital fund; $310 million for drug elimination
grants, and $600 million for the HOPE VI severely distressed public housing
program. The House agreed with the Senate on operating funds, approved $3 billion
for the capital fund, $290 million for drug elimination, and $600 million for HOPE
VI. $100 million in welfare-to-work was approved by the House, with the funds
allocated through the Housing Certificate Fund. The Conference bill approved the
requested $283 million for welfare-to-work assistance, $625 million for HOPE, and
accepted the House level of $3 billion for the capital fund.
Native American Block Grants. Under the Native American Block Grant,
eligible Indian tribes or their Tribally Designated Housing Entities receive funds
which can be used for a variety of activities that would increase their supply of
affordable housing. The President requested $600 million for the Native American
3
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary:
Closing the Opportunity Gap. p. 25.
CRS-9
Housing Block Grant for FY1999, the same as funded for FY1998. Also requested
are $11 million in new funds for loan guarantees patterned after the Community
Development Block Grant Section 108 program. The Senate approved $600 million;
the House approved $620 million; the Conference approved the House level.
Rural Housing and Economic Development. The Senate approved creation
of a new Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, to channel federal
funds for revitalizing housing projects in rural areas, and for ideas for economic
development in such areas. Money would be distributed through nonprofit agencies
at the community level. The Senate approved $35 million for the Office; conferees
included $25 million for the Office in the final bill.
For more information on public housing issues, see CRS Report 97-169,
Housing Issues in the 105th Congress, by Richard Bourdon.
Community Planning and Development. P. L. 105-276 includes a number of
programs under the general category of Community Planning and Development.
Community Development Block Grant. The Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program is the largest source of federal assistance to state and local
government for housing rehabilitation, economic development, and neighborhood
revitalization. P.L. 105-276, appropriates $4.750 billion in CDBG assistance for
FY1998. The Administration requested $4.725 billion for CDBG. Responding to
criticism of the increased use of earmarked program funds within CDBG (set asides)
in the program’s FY1998 appropriation, the Administration’s FY1999 budget
requested $292 million for set aside activities, $187 million less than the $479
million appropriated for FY1998. For FY1999, P. L. 105-276, increases the amount
of funds targeted for such set asides by $47.8 million to $526.8 million
In passing P.L. 105-276, Congress, as recommended by the Administration,
continued funding a number of programs as CDBG set asides including Habitat for
Humanity, and the Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services (ROSS). Congress
did not provide funding for a new CDBG set aside program proposed by the
Administration — the Regional Connection Initiative (RCI). The initiative was
intended to assist communities and states develop regional strategies to address
issues facing metropolitan areas. Congress also rejected the President’s budget
proposals that recommended eliminating other CDBG set asides, including the
Neighborhood Initiative Program, the Housing Assistance Counseling, the
Rural/Tribal Initiative, the Community Outreach Partnership, and the Capacity
Building program. All of these programs are included as CDBG set aside activities.
Several programs and activities funded as set asides in FY1998 were proposed
as free standing programs for FY1999. The Administration’s FY1999 budget
recommended converting Youthbuild, Lead Base Paint Reduction, and Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) — to be renamed the Community Empowerment Fund
(CEF) — into free standing programs. The new CEF program would have continue
to be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantees and is intended to support
job opportunities for persons moving from welfare-to-work. P.L. 105-267, continues
Youthbuild and EDI as CDBG set asides. The Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction
program receives $80 million under a separate appropriation account.
CRS-10
The Act, P.L. 105-276, includes several provisions amending the CDBG
authorizing statue including identifying brownfield redevelopment as an eligible
CDBG activity and prohibiting the use of CDBG funds to facilitate the relocation of
jobs from one location to another.
For additional information on these programs, see CRS Issue Brief 98026,
Community Development Block Grants: Funding and Other Issues in the 105th
Congress, by Eugene Boyd.
Homeless Assistance Grants. The President’s budget request for homeless
assistance includes funding for both grants and Section 8 vouchers. The President
proposed $1.15 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants in FY1999, an increase of
40% over the FY1998 appropriation of $823 million. The request included $958
million to be distributed through HUD’s participation in comprehensive strategies
for addressing homelessness, and $192 million for 34,000 new Section 8 vouchers
targeted to homeless families or individuals ready to make the transition from
temporary to permanent housing after counseling. One percent of the voucher
funding would be available for technical assistance (the House approved this
proposal, and the conferees concurred).
The Senate approved $1 billion for homeless assistance grants. The Senate
report recommended that 30% of homeless assistance grant funding be used for
permanent housing for the homeless; conferees concurred. The House approved
$975 million for homeless grants; the Conference approved the levels in the House
bill.
Housing for the Elderly and Disabled. The President’s budget proposal for
FY1999 would operate housing for the elderly and disabled (Section 202 and Section
811 programs) as a component of the HOME Investments Partnership Programs.
The Senate adopted separate funding for both: $676 million for the Section 202
program and $194 million for the Section 811 program. The Report language also
recommended that 25% of the appropriated funding for housing for the disabled be
permitted to provide housing vouchers for the disabled. The House bill does not
separate the funding, recommended at $839 million.
P. L. 105-276 appropriates separate funding for both programs, $660 million for
the Section 202 program and $194 million for the Section 811 programs. Up to 25%
of appropriated Section 811 may be used for vouchers for the disabled.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program. The HOME program makes
funds available to participating jurisdictions to increase the supply of housing and
homeownership for low-income families. States and localities have the option of
using HOME funds for a variety of housing activities.4 The President’s budget
requests $1.88 billion for the HOME program in FY1999, including $1.5 billion for
4
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Congressional Justifications for
1999 Estimates. p. G-1.
CRS-11
HOME grants, $25 million for housing counseling, and $333 million for housing the
elderly and disabled.
The Senate approved a FY1999 appropriation of $1.55 billion, $333 million
less than requested by the Administration, and rejected an Administration proposal
to consolidate the Section 202 Elderly and Handicap Housing Program into the
HOME program. The House approved an increase of $100 million above the
FY1998 appropriation of $1.5 billion, $50 million more than approved by the Senate.
Conferees approved $1.6 billion for the Investment Partnerships, earmarking $17.5
million for housing counseling activities.
For further information, see CRS Report 97-352, The Home Program in the
105th Congress, by Eugene Boyd
Youthbuild. The Youthbuild program, which provides supervised education
and job training to teenaged residents in public housing, was funded as a $35 million
set aside of the CDBG program in FY1998. The President requested that, for
FY1999, Youthbuild be funded as an independent program with $45 million. The
Senate approved $40 million as a set-aside under CDBG. The House also did not
include a separate appropriation for the Youthbuild program, but agreed that
Youthbuild activities could be funded as a set-aside under the CDBG program. P.
L. 105-276, continues the Youthbuild program as a $42.5 million CDBG set aside
program. This includes $2.5 million for capacity building activities.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). This program
provides grants to states, localities and nonprofit organizations to meet the housing
needs of individuals with HIV/AIDS and their families. The President has requested
an FY1999 appropriation of $225 million for the HOPWA program. This would be
an increase of 10% above the FY1998 appropriation of $204 million. The Senate bill
contains $225 million for HOPWA in FY1999. The House Committee’s similar
recommendation was reduced by $21 million as a result of an amendment on the
House floor (which would have funded the program at FY1998 levels). The
reduction in HOPWA funds was intended as an offset for increased funds given by
the amendment to VA for use as grants to states for veterans extended care facilities.
Conferees approved $215 million for HOPWA.
Lead-based Paint Reduction. The President requested $85 million for the
Lead-based Paint Reduction program for FY1999. In the FY1998 budget the
program was funded as a set aside in the CDBG program. The Senate approved $60
million as a set aside under CDBG; the Administration had proposed that lead-based
paint reduction be funded as an independent program. The House bill provides $80
million in direct appropriations. P. L. 105-276, established the program as a free
standing activity and not as a CDBG set aside. The Act appropriates $80 million for
lead based paint hazard reduction activities.
Growth in Homeownership. In 1995, President Clinton pledged to reach a
homeownership rate of 67.5% by the year 2000, up from its then current rate of
64.7%. The Administration believes that “nothing manifests the American dream
CRS-12
more than owning a home.”5 The budget proposed to raise the home mortgage loan
insurance limits of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to the Freddie
Mac/Fannie Mae limit.
P. L. 105-276 amends the National Housing Act to provide that FHA-insured
loans on one-family homes will be limited to 95% of the median price for an area,
subject to the restriction that the limits may not be less than 48% of the Freddie Mac
limit nor greater than 87% of the Freddie Mac limit. Given the present Freddie Mac
limit of $227,150, the legislation provides that limits for FHA-insured loans on onefamily homes may range between $109,032 and $197,620.
For more information on programs on FHA mortgage limits, see CRS Report
98-421, Raising the FHA Mortgage Limit: Issues and Options, by Bruce E. Foote.
Table 6. Appropriations: Housing and Urban Development, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
Program
Housing certificate fund
Expiring Section 8 contracts
Section 8 amendments
Section 8 relocation assistance
Regional opportunity counseling
Welfare-to-work hsng. vouchers
Self-sufficiency incrementals
Sect. 8 rescissions (P.L. 105-174)a
Sect. 8 project-based rescissions
Welfare-to-work hsng. vouchers
HouseAdmin.
passed
Request (H.R. 4194)
Senatepassed
(S. 2168)
P.L.
105-276
9.373
(8.180)
(0.850)
(0.343)
0
0
0
-2.347
0
0
8.981
(7.191)
(1.337)
(0.434)
(0.020)
0
0
—
0
0.283
10.241
(9.60)
(.097)
(.434)
(.010)
(.100)
—
—
—
0
10.014
(9.540)
0
(0.434)
0
0
(0.040)
—
-1.400
0
10.327
(9.600)
0
(.434)
(.010)
(.283)
0
—
-1.650
0
Public housing capital fund
2.500
2.550
3.000
2.550
3.000
Pub. housing modernization fund
2.900
2.818
2.818
2.818
2.818
Current year rescissions
-0.550
0
0
0
0
Drug elimination grants
0.310
0.310
0.290
0.310
0.310
Distressed pub. hous. (HOPE)
0.550
0.550
0.600
0.600
0.625
Native American hsng. blk. grants
0.600
0.600
0.620
0.600
0.620
Indian hsng. loan guar.
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Title VI Indian loan guar.
0
0.005
0
0
0
Capital preservation loans
0.010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.035
0.025
0.204
0.225
0.204
0.225
0.215
Rural Hsng.; Econ. Development
Housing for persons with AIDS
5
FY1998
Enacted
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary:
Closing the Opportunity Gap. p. 14.
CRS-13
FY1999
FY1998
Enacted
Program
HouseAdmin.
passed
Request (H.R. 4194)
Senatepassed
(S. 2168)
P.L.
105-276
Economic development initiative
0
0.400
0
0b
0b
Community Devel. Block Grants
4.805
4.725
4.725
4.750
4.750
Homeless Assistance Grants
0.823
1.150
0.975
1.000
0.975
HOME Investment Partnerships
1.500
1.883
1.600
1.550
1.600
Brownfields Initiative
0.025
0.050
0
—
0.025
c
0
0.045
0
0
0c
Section 108 loan guarantee
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
Empowerment zones, partnrshps.
0.005
0
0
0
0
-0.010
—
—
0
0
Subtotal: Pub., Indian Hsng. (net) (20.733)
(24.611)
(25.109)
(23.113)
(23.676)
—
0
0
0
d
0.080
Youthbuild
Supportive hsng. (rescission)
Rental hsng. assist. (rescission)
-0.125
Office of lead hazard control
0
0.085
0.080
0.839
0
0.839
0.870
0.854
0.201
0.271
-0.033
-0.033
-0.033
Research and technology
0.037
0.050
0.048
0.037
0.048
GNMA Funds
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
Fair housing activities
0.030
0.052
0.040
0.035
0.040
Inspector General
0.041
0.035
0.050
0.035
0.050
Salaries and expenses
0.446
0.472
0.457
0.464
0.457
Offsetting receipts
-0.204
-0.370
-0.370
-0.370
-0.370
Admin. provisions (net)
-0.562
-0.400
-0.083
-0.065
-0.468
Subtotal (HUD) (net)
(rounded, may not add)
21.445
24.815
26.145
24.094
24.342
Housing, elderly and disabled
Federal Housing Administration
e
0
Source: H.Rept. 105-769
a
Rescissions to unspent appropriations from previous years; offset against appropriations of the
current year.
b
Would be funded as a $85 million set-aside in the Community Development Block Grant.
c
Would be funded as a $40 million set-aside in the Community Development Block Grant.
d
Would be funded as a $60 million set-aside in the Community Development Block Grant.
e
Net FHA expenditures, after certain administrative costs are reconciled with other administrative
accounts, administrative receipts, and reduced loan account cross subsidies.
Fair Housing. In an effort to end housing discrimination, the President
requested increases for the Fair Housing Initiatives and the Fair Housing Assistance
Program. The Initiatives program funds private, nonprofit organization’s efforts to
enhance compliance with Fair Housing requirements; the Assistance program
reimburses state and local governments for certain aspects of their Fair Housing
compliance programs. Fair Housing Initiatives would receive $29 million, $14
million more than in FY1998, and Fair Housing Assistance, $23 million, an $8
million increase over last year’s level, under the President’s FY1999 request for
CRS-14
HUD. The Senate approved $20 million for the Fair Housing Assistance program in
FY1999 and $15 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. The House
approved $40 million for the two programs; conferees accepted the House levels.
For further information on housing programs, and on programs intended to
revitalize communities, and on proposed reform of those programs, see CRS Report
98-345, Budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
FY1999, by Susan Vanhorenbeck, Bruce E. Foote, and Pauline Smale.
Quality Housing Opportunity and Work Responsibility Act. In 1997, two
versions of a housing authorization bill (H.R. 2 and S. 462) were introduced in
Congress. Both bills would reform the public housing system as well as other
housing programs under the HUD jurisdiction. Both bills passed their respective
houses, but they never went to conference, and differences between them remained
unresolved. During House floor action on the FY1999 VA-HUD appropriations bill
(H.R. 4194), an amendment was adopted that attached the essential language of H.R.
2, the Housing and Opportunity and Responsibility Act. Conferees deliberated issues
in H. R. 2 and S. 462, and with participation of the Administration, completed work
on this major authorization of federal housing programs.
Under the new law, well-run public housing agencies will have more freedom
to operate; poorly run agencies will be held more accountable; more working families
with higher incomes will live in public housing that is now largely occupied by the
poorest of the poor; and some residents will be required to perform 8 hours a month
of community service. In both public housing and Section 8 programs, it will be
easier to evict tenants who commit crimes and cause problems. A home rule flexible
grant demonstration program will allow some local governments (rather than public
housing agencies) to receive federal housing funds to develop creative approaches
for providing affordable housing. A new Section 8 housing voucher program will be
more landlord-friendly and more market-driven. Most provisions in the new law
become effective October 1, 1999.
For further information on this significant change in federal housing policy, see
CRS Report 98-860, Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Programs for LowIncome Families, by Morton J. Schussheim; and CRS Report 98-868, Public Housing
and Section 8 Reforms: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,
by Richard Bourdon.
For more information on the previous housing authorization bills, see CRS
Report 98-443, Housing Authorization Bills: Overview of H.R. 2 and S. 462, by
Susan Vanhorenbeck.
Environmental Protection Agency
The President’s FY1999 request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) sought $7.8 billion in spending authority — including $650 million in advance
FY1999 appropriations — or 6% more than the $7.4 billion appropriated for FY1998.
Both the Senate and House approved about $7.4 billion, roughly $400 million below
the request and marginally greater than current year funding. Conferees approved
CRS-15
and P.L. 105- 276 included $7.6 billion. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
P.L. 105-277, added $30 million more for FY1999.
Two major issues have been whether Superfund cleanups should be accelerated
in the absence of statutory reforms and whether the requested state assistance funds
are adequate. In approving $1.5 billion for Superfund, both Chambers rejected the
Administration’s request to expand Superfund by $650 million, although the
conferees have authorized an additional $650 million for FY1999 if reauthorization
occurs by August 1, 1999. The final bill added funds to the requested amounts for
states and localities.
Another issue drawing the Administration’s attention to the VA-HUD bill is its
treatment of EPA’s controversial global change activities. As recommended by both
Appropriations Committees, the conferees denied most of the requested increase of
roughly $80 million for climate change activities, as well as additional research
funds. The House Committee adopted a rider, or bill language, prohibiting EPA from
spending FY1999 funding on certain activities, including education, relative to
implementing the yet-to-be ratified Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases; the
full House later adopted an amendment allowing expenditures on educational and
outreach activities. The Senate Committee included report language prohibiting EPA
from implementing the treaty. The conferees included bill language in P.L. 105-276
prohibiting EPA from spending funds on activities which would implement the
treaty. P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, included $10 million in
additional funds for global climate activities. The Administration supports the
Protocol as an international response to global warming.
Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
$6.7
$6.7
$6.5
$6.8
$7.4
$7.6
Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769
In a compromise with the Administration, the Congress provided $1.5 billion
for the Superfund program for FY1998, and agreed to provide another $650 million
in FY1999, provided that the Superfund program was reauthorized by May 15, 1998,
which did not happen. For FY1999, Congress in P.L. 105-276 provided $1.5 billion
and authorized an additional $650 million if Superfund is reauthorized by August 1,
1999. For more detailed information on the Superfund, see CRS Issue Brief 97025,
Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 105th Congress, by Mark Reisch.
Addressing the major capital needs of states and localities for wastewater and
drinking water cleanup remains a congressional concern. To assist states and tribal
governments with these capital projects, the budget sought $2.9 billion, 9.6 % less
than current year funding; conferees approved a total of $3.4 billion. Conferees
added clean water state revolving funds ($1.1 billion proposed; $1.4 billion
CRS-16
approved); approved the requested drinking water state revolving funds ($775 million
proposed and approved), reduced Mexican Border projects ($100 million; $50
million approved), added-on to state and tribal grants ($875 million proposed; $880
approved), and expanded special grants ($78 million; $302 million approved). The
Senate Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 86, disapproved of the Administration’s
proposed decrease in clean water assistance. Both Houses and the conferees
approved most of the requested $145 million increase for EPA’s portion of the
President’s Clean Water Initiative. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L.
105-277, included an additional $20 million for Boston Harbor wastewater treatment
facilities
Table 8. Appropriations: Environmental Protection Agency, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
Program
Science and Technology
(including transfers from
Superfund)
Environmental programs,
compliance (management)
Office of Inspector General
Buildings and facilities
Superfund (net, after
transfers)
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund
Oil spill response
State and tribal assistance
grants
Subtotal (EPA)
(rounded, may not add)
FY1998
Enacted
Admin.
Request
Housepassed
(H.R.
4194)
0.666
0.674
0.697
0.684
0.690
1.801
1.994
1.856
1.841
1.848
0.040
0.109
0.043
0.053
0.043
0.061
0.043
0.053
0.043
0.057
1.453
2.040
1.448
1.448
1.448
0.065
0.071
0.070
0.075
0.073
0.015
0.017
.0015
0.015
0.015
3.213
2.903
3.233
3.255
3.387
7.363
7.795a
7.423
7.413
7.560
Senatepassed
P.L.
(S. 2168) 105-276
Source: H.Rept. 105-769.
For information on wastewater treatment issues, see CRS Report 98-323,
Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background; for clean air issues, see CRS
Issue Brief 97007, Clean Air Act Issues, by James McCarthy. For additional detail
on clean air issues, see CRS Report 97-8, Air Quality: EPA’s Proposed New Ozone
and Particulate Matter Standards, by John Blodgett and James McCarthy. For more
detailed information on EPA and its budget, see CRS Issue Brief 98031,
Environmental Protection Agency: Analysis of Key Budget Issues, by Martin Lee.
CRS-17
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helps states and
localities prepare for and cope with disasters that overwhelm their own capabilities.
FEMA administers policies related to emergency management and planning, disaster
relief, fire prevention, earthquake hazard reduction, emergency broadcasting services,
flood insurance, mitigation programs, and dam safety. For further information, see
CRS Report 97-159, FEMA and Disaster Relief, by Keith Bea.
Table 9. Appropriations: Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
FY1998
Enacted
Admin.
Request
Housepassed
(H.R. 4194)
Senatepassed
(S. 2168)
P.L.
105-276
0.320
0.308
0.308
0.846
0.308
0
0.050
0
0
0
Disaster loan subsidy
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Salaries and expenses
0.172
0.172
0.171
0.170
0.171
Inspector General
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Emergency mgmt.,
planning, assistance
0.244
0.207
0.232
0.239
0.241
Emrgncy. food, shelter
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Administrative savings
-0.012
0
0
0
0
Supplemental approp.,
contingent emergency
funds for disaster relief
(1.600)
(0.626)
—
—
—
0.830
0.844
0.817
1.362
0.827
Program
Disaster relief
Pre-disaster mitigation
Subtotal* (FEMA)
(rounded, may not add)
Source: H.Rept. 105-769
*
Does not include funds requested for disaster relief contingent on presidential and
congressional agreement that emergency need exists.
Disaster relief is authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act). The Act authorizes the President to
declare major disasters or emergencies (the latter provide considerably less federal
assistance than the former), sets out eligibility criteria, and specifies types of
assistance that may be authorized. Funding varies from year-to-year, by the severity
and frequency of declared catastrophes. In recent years, billions have been
appropriated to help communities recover from tornados, hurricanes, floods,
earthquakes, and other incidents.
CRS-18
Members of Congress have voiced general support for the Administration’s
emphasis in recent years on disaster mitigation, but disagree on specifics. Instead of
agreeing to the request for separate funding for the Project Impact Mitigation efforts,
the House and Senate panels set aside roughly half the amount requested in the
existing account that funds state and local emergency preparedness activities
(“emergency management, planning and assistance,” or EMPA). Also, the House
subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA appropriations has raised concerns about
the process used by FEMA to identify mitigation priorities. The Senate panel report
noted concern with the administration of existing mitigation authority, and has
requested that the General Accounting Office review federal and non-federal
mitigation activities.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
For FY1999, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requested
$13.46 billion, $183 million below the FY1998 appropriation. (NASA’s budget
request can be found at [http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget]). The Senate approved
$13.62 billion for FY1999, 1.1% above the request but 0.2% below FY1998. The
Senate also deleted the Human Space Flight account and created two others, the
“International space station” and the “Launch vehicle and payload operations”
accounts, in order to increase accountability of the space station activities. It also
deletes the “Science, aeronautics, and technology” account and created two new
others, the “Science and technology” and “Aeronautics, space transportation, and
technology” accounts, in order to protect the latter from future budget reductions.
The House approved$13.328 billion for FY1999, 2.1% below the request and 1.0%
below last year. Although separate appropriation objectives continue to be identified,
the House did not alter the formal account structure. The final bill provides $13.665
billion for FY1999, 1.4% above the request and 0.1% above FY1998. The conferees
retained the current NASA account structure, but directed NASA to put the
International Space Station (ISS) in a separate account in its FY2000 submission.
Table 10. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
$14.55
$14.00
$13.88
$13.71
$13.65
$13.67
Source: CRS Report 97-204; H.Rept. 105-769
The Senate approved $5.54 billion for the programs making up the Human
Space Flight account including $2.3 billion for the ISS. While maintaining support
for the station, the Senate expressed strong concern about continuing cost escalation.
The House approved $5.31 billion for this account including $2.1 billion for the ISS.
It expressed concern about the lack of management control of the ISS project by
NASA and its contractors. The final bill provides $5.48 billion for Human Space
Flight including $2.27 billion, the requested amount, for the ISS. The conferees
expressed considerable concern about the status of the ISS and the situation with
CRS-19
Russia, the principal partner to the United States on the station project. Floor
amendments to terminate the ISS failed in both the House and Senate.
The Senate approved a $105 million increase over the request for the Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology (SAT) acocunt. In doing so, the Senate directed NASA
to review its planned space science work for the next 15 years, to determine which
of that work could not be done under NASA’s new “faster, cheaper, and better”
philosophy, which, the Senate believes, might be compromising the achievement of
some scientific objectives. The House approved an increase of $84 million over the
request. The final bill provides an increase of $236 million over the request,
including funding for a number of specific projects.
Both the space science and earth science programs within the SAT account
received more funds than requested in the final bill. Specific increases are provided
for the Next Generation Space Telescope and the Earth Orbiting System (EOS) AM1 satellite. Launch of the latter has been delayed to early 1999.
Table 11. Appropriations: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
FY1998
Enacted
Admin.
Request
Housepassed
(H.R. 4194)
Senatepassed
(S. 2168)
Human space flight
5.507
5.511
5.309
—
5.480
Science, aeronaut.,
tech.
5.690
5.457
5.542
—
5.654
International Space
Station
—
—
—
2.300
—
Launch vehicles;
operations
—
—
—
3.241
—
Science and
Technology
—
—
—
4.257
—
Aero., space trans.,
tech.
—
—
—
1.305
—
Mission support
2.433
2.477
2.459
2.492
2.511
Inspector General
0.018
0.020
0.019
0.020
0.020
Subtotal (NASA)
(rounded, may not
add)
13.648
13.465
13.328
13.615
13.665
Program
P.L.
105276
Source: H. Rept. 105-276.
Actions by Congress suggest strong support for the basic research carried out
by NASA as well as continued support for the ISS. However, it is apparent that
CRS-20
Congressional concern is growing about NASA’s ability to fund a balanced space and
aeronautics program including the ISS and to control ISS project costs.
For more information on ISS, see CRS Issue Brief 93017, Space Stations, by
Marcia Smith. For a more detailed discussion of NASA and its FY1999 request, see
CRS Report 97-634, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: An
Overview With FY1998 and FY1999 Budget Summaries, by David Radzanowski and
Richard Rowberg. For more discussion on the ISS, see CRS Issue Brief 93017,
Space Stations, by Marcia S. Smith. For other issues in federal research and
development, see CRS Issue Brief 98011, Research and Development Funding:
Fiscal Year 1999, by Michael E. Davey, Coordinator.
National Science Foundation
The FY1999 appropriation for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is $3.671
billion, a 7% increase over the FY1998 estimate. The FY1999 funding permits
significant investments in several emerging areas, including knowledge and
distributed intelligence (KDI), integration of research and education, and life and
earth’s environment. The KDI also supports the Next Generation Internet, a multiagency effort. The integration of research and education is a key theme of NSF’s
efforts in the area of Educating for the Future, which includes such programs as
Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry, the Integrative Graduation
Education and Research Training program, Faculty Early Career Development
program, and Research Experiences for Undergraduates.
Table 12. National Science Foundation Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current $)
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
$2.99
$3.23
$3.22
$3.27
$3.43
$3.67
Source: H.Rept. 105-769.
The FY1999 appropriation for the Education and Human Resources Directorate
(EHR) is $662 million, a 5% increase ($30 million) above the FY1998 level. The
FY1999 request proposed $683 million for EHR. This program provides funds at
various educational levels. The support at the precollege level is directed primarily
at the K-8 mathematics initiative, the research on education and training technologies
initiative, and the extension of effective applications of computer, networking, and
other technologies. Support at the undergraduate level is focused primarily on reform
of undergraduate education and addressing advanced technical training. Funding at
the graduate level supports the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Training program. The Conferees provided an additional $13.5 million for minority
undergraduate and graduate programs, and an additional $10 million for informal
science activities.
CRS-21
The Research and Related Activities account (RRA) is funded at $2.77 billion
in FY1999, $224 million (9%) above the FY1998 level. Support is provided to
individuals and small groups conducting disciplinary and cross-disciplinary research.
Included in the RRA is additional support for arctic logistics activities, the radius
data base project, and plant genome research. The conference report included
language directing the NSF to improve the participation of those colleges and
universities that fall outside of the top 100 institutions receiving research support.
Table 13. Appropriations: National Science Foundation, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
Program
FY1998
Enacted
Admin.
Request
Housepassed
(H.R.
4194)
Senatepassed
(S.
2168)
P.L.
105276
Research, related
activities
2.546
2.847
2.815
2.725
2.770
Education, human
resources
0.633
0.683
0.643
0.683
0.662
Major research
equipment
0.109
0.094
0.090
0.094
0.090
Salaries and expenses
0.137
0.144
0.144
0.137
0.144
Office of Inspector
General
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Subtotal (NSF)
(rounded, may not
add)
3.429
3.773
3.697
3.644
3.671
Source: H.Rept. 105-769.
For FY1999, Congress has provided $90 million for the Major Research
Equipment (MRE) account. Five projects are supported by this account: start up
construction funds for the Large Hadron Collider, development support for the
Millimeter Array, construction of the Polar Cap Observatory, ongoing modernization
of the South Pole Station, and funding for the reconfiguration of the Polar Support
Aircraft.
In December 1997, the National Science Board, the policy-making arm of the
NSF, issued a working paper in which it criticized the manner in which science
policy is coordinated.6 The Board noted that because NSF accounts for $2 billion
of the $17 billion spent on basic research in the United States, it should assume some
responsibility for advising the government on science policy beyond the confines of
NSF.
6
National Science Board, Government Funding of Scientific Research: A Working Paper
of the National Science Board, NSB97-186, December 1997. 15 p.
CRS-22
On March 19, 1998, the National Science Board commented on a proposal to
establish a National Institute for the Environment (NIE) within the NSF. (Language
was included in the FY1998 appropriations for NSF to review the feasibility of
operating such an institute.) While the Board acknowledged the need for expanded
environmental research, education, and assessment, it did not agree with establishing
a separate entity within the NSF. The Board stated that as proposed, the NIE: “ ...
could isolate environmental research from related science and engineering research,
as well as duplicate the existing policy and management structure and entail
unnecessary cost.”7
For additional information on NSF, see CRS Report 95-897, National Science
Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences — A Fact
Sheet; and, CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview,
both by Christine M. Matthews. For issues in federal research and development, see
CRS Issue Brief 98011, Research and Development Funding: Fiscal Year 1999, by
Michael E. Davey, Coordinator.
Other Independent Agencies
In addition to funding for VA, HUD, EPA, FEMA, NASA and NSF, several
other smaller “sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and
offices” will receive their funding through the bill providing appropriations for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1998.
American Battle Monuments Commission. This Commission is responsible
for the construction and maintenance of memorials honoring Armed Forces battle
achievements since 1917. The Administration asked for $23.9 million for FY1999,
a decrease from $26.9 million provided for FY1998. The additional $3 million for
the current fiscal year would be used to reduce a backlog in equipment and
maintenance. The Senate approved $3 million more than the Administration’s
request for FY1999, $2.5 million for renovation of the Liberty Memorial Monument.
The House approved $.5 million less than its counterpart. Conferees approved the
House levels.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This Board originated in
the FY1998 bill, with $4 million appropriated to meet start-up operations costs. The
Administration has requested $7 million for FY1999; both Houses approved $6.5
million; conferees accepted that level for the final bill.
Community Development Financial Institution Fund. The Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI) was created by P.L. 103-325. The
CDFI is an Administration initiative to provide credit and investment capital to
distressed urban and rural areas. The program also provides technical and training
assistance to qualifying financial institutions. The program has survived despite
attempts to eliminate it.
7
The complete text of the statement can be accessed electronically from the National
Science Board, The Proposed National Institute for the Environment, NSB98-65, March
19, 1998 [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1998/nsb9865/nsb9865.htm].
CRS-23
P.L. 104-19 modified the original Act by giving the Department of the Treasury
the authority to manage the CDFI program, although the CDFI continues to be
funded through the VA/HUD bill. After attempts to end funds for the CDFI were
defeated, Congress appropriated $80 million for FY1998, but included a requirement
that GAO audit the CDFI to “review” its effectiveness.
The Administration’s FY1999 budget has requested $125 million for CDFI, the
same amount requested in the Administration’s budget for FY1998. The Senate bill,
citing continuing concerns about accountability, provided $55 million. The House
approved $80 million, and conferees accepted that level in the final version.
For further information on CDFI, see CRS Report 97-819, Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, by Pauline Smale.
Consumer Information Center. The Center helps federal agencies distribute
consumer information and promotes public awareness of existing federal
publications. The Administration requests $2.419 million for the Center for FY1999;
$300,000 of which is to perform functions of the Office of Consumer Affairs, an
entity previously administered through the Department of Health and Human
Services. That federal entity received no appropriations for FY1998. The Senate bill
agrees with the Administration request; the House approved $2.619 million, and the
conferees approved that level.
Consumer Product Safety Commission. This Commission is an independent
regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable product risk
and to research and develop uniform safety standards for consumer products. The
Administration requests $46.5 million for FY1999, up $1.5 million over FY1998
appropriations. The Senate agreed with the requested amount; the House Committee
recommended reducing the request by $.5 million; a floor amendment added $5
million. Conferees approved $46 million. Conferees also added language requiring
the Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study of the
potential toxicologic risks of fire-retardant chemicals that the Commission has
proposed be required in residential upholstered furniture, and in children’s sleepwear.
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The key issue
concerning the Corporation, whose programs are strongly supported by President
Clinton, has been budgetary survival. The largest of the Corporation’s 9 programs
is AmeriCorps, funded at $277 million for FY1998. Some Members have expressed
concerns about partisan activities, program costs, financial management issues, and
whether government should support a paid “volunteer” program. (Some programs
administered by the Corporation, — e.g., Foster Grandparents Program and Senior
Companion Program — are funded under the Labor/HHS Appropriation bill and have
been non-controversial.)
The Senate provided FY1999 funding for the programs of the Corporation at
FY1998 levels, $428.5 million, including $3 million for the Inspector General. The
House voted to eliminate all funding for the Corporation. The Conference approved
the Senate level.
CRS-24
Authorization for CNCS expired at the end of FY1996. Since then, continued
program authority has occurred through the appropriations process. The President
has transmitted to Congress the National and Community Service Amendments of
1998, a bill to reauthorize and amend the National and Community Service Act of
1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973; the bill was introduced in the
House as H.R. 3561, but no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. No
action on H.R. 3561 occurred.
Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Environmental Quality.
These two entities are administered by the Executive Office of the President. The
Council is responsible for oversight and coordination of interagency decisions in
matters affecting the environment; the Office provides the professional and
administrative staff for the Council. Congress appropriated $2.5 million for these
functions in FY1998; in addition, Congress provided a special one-time $1 million
appropriation to the Executive Office of the President for “unanticipated needs.” The
President has requested $3.02 million for FY1999; the Senate approved $2.575
million; the House, $2.675 million; conferees adopted the House level.
Court of Veterans Appeals. The Court of Veterans Appeals has exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and has the
authority to decide relevant conflicts in the interpretation of relevant law by VA and
the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and its decisions constitute precedent to guide
subsequent decisions by that Board. Congress provided $9.3 million for operations
for the Court in FY1998; the President has requested $10.2 million for FY1999; the
Senate approved $10 million, allowing no increase in staffing. The House concurs
with the requested amount, and conferees concurred with the House level.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC’s Office of the Inspector
General is funded from deposit insurance funds, and has no direct effect on federal
taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved by the FDIC Board of
Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated to ensure the independence of the
IG office. This year the amount requested is $34.7 million; both Houses concur;
conferees made no changes.
National Credit Union Administration. The purpose of this administrative
office, created under the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (P.L.
95-630), is to improve the general financial stability of credit unions. Subscribing
credit unions may borrow from the agency to meet short-term requirements. The
Administration requested $176,000 for the agency’s functions; both Houses accepted
the requested amounts; the conferees agreed, and approved the House proposal for
a revolving loan program for credit union risk pooling, with a subsidy of $2 million.
The Senate has proposed a risk pool cost of $1million.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC). The NRC leverages funds
for reinvestment in older neighborhoods through community-based organizations
called NeighborWorks. Among projects supported by the financing activities of the
NRC are lending activities for home ownership of low-income families. Congress
appropriated $60 million for the NRC in FY1998; the President requested $90
million for FY1999, and the House bill provides that amount. The Senate approved
$60 million recommendation. Conferees accepted the $90 million level, and
CRS-25
approved $25 million as an earmark for a pilot homeownership initiative, as proposed
by the House.
Table 14. Appropriations: Other Independent Agencies, FY1999
(budget authority in billions of $)
FY1999
Program
American Battle
Monuments Commission
FY1998
Enacted
HouseSenateAdmin.
passed
passed P.L. 105Request (H.R. 4194) (S. 2168)
276
0.027
0.024
0.026
0.027
0.026
Chem. Safety and Hazard
Investigations Board
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Cemetery Exp., Army
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
Community Development
Financial Institutions
0.080
0.125
0.080
0.055
0.080
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.003
Consumer Product Safety
Commission
0.045
0.047
0.051
0.047
0.047
Corporation for National
and Community Servicea
0.429
0.502
0
0.429
0.429
Council on Environmental
Quality
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Court of Veterans Appeals
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation
(0.034)
(0.035)
(0.034)
(0.034)
(0.0)
Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation
0.060
0.090
0.090
0.060
0.090
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.002
Office of Science
&Technology Policy
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Selective Service System
0.023
0.025
0.024
0.025
0.024
Subtotal:
(rounded, may not add)
0.701
0.852
0.313
0.683
0.738
Consumer Information.
Center
National Credit Union
Administration
Source: H.Rept. 105-679
a
Includes $3 million for CNCS Office of the Inspector General.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy coordinates science and technology policy for the White House.
The Office provides scientific and technological information, analysis and advice for
CRS-26
the President and Executive Branch, and reviews and participates in formulation in
national policies affecting those areas. Congress appropriated $4.9 million for the
Office for FY1998; the President has requested $5 million for FY1999; both Houses
approved the Administration’s request; conferees agreed.
Selective Service System (SSS). The SSS was created to supply manpower to
the U.S. Armed Forces during time of national emergency. Although since 1973, the
the Armed Forces has been on voluntary recruitment and incentives, the SSS remains
the primary vehicle for conscription should it become necessary. In 1987, the SSS
was given the task of developing a postmobilization health care system that would
assist with providing the Armed Forces with health care personnel in time of
emergency. Congress appropriated $23.4 million for this office for FY1998; the
President has requested $24.9 for FY1999; the Senate approved the request; the
House approved $24.2 million. Conferees adopted the House level for the final bill.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Summary and Justification of Budget.
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage]
Corporation for National and Community Service
[http://www.cns.gov/]
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
[http://www.hud.gov]
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
[http://www.fema.gov]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov]
National Science Foundation (NSF).
[http://www.nsf.gov]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
[http://www.va.gov]